Sarasota Florida stupidity

This is a discussion on Sarasota Florida stupidity within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by 1911NM
Growing old ain't for sissies, but there comes a time in everyone's life where maybe they shouldn't have a drivers license, ...

Growing old ain't for sissies, but there comes a time in everyone's life where maybe they shouldn't have a drivers license, or a CCW permit anymore. Sad, but reality.

Yup, and even sadder are the ones that fight it to the end even when they are a danger to themselves and others. Driving, carrying a firearm, etc... I lost my father and a grand parent to Alzheimers and it was NOT fun...or quick either...

Unfortunately, this guy probably didn't do the pro-gun side good doing what he did....considering that many Sarasota-ians come from parts of the U.S. that aren't the most gun friendly in the world, i.e., NYC, Chicago, etc.

How about this concept... You are resposible for your actions! End of story. He committed an act that should result under Florida law which would cause his permit to be revoked. So Revoke it and move on! No big deal, no big issue, no national fanfare.

Someone violates the provisions of their state ccw statutes, the state should evoke the stated penalty and move on. If thats a case that has a provision for jail time, then he needs to serve jail time. If it's a matter of a fine and suspension of permit, then fine him and suspend his permit. If he violated a clause that calls for permanent revocation then revoke the permit.

We don't need to infringe on other rights to create new laws for special circumstances. All states have ccw laws that address these issues. Some states have laws that are rather lenient and some states are rather strict and harsh. However it is, the law should be applied equally according to that states ccw statute.

And nothing in the statute clearly bans drinking in a public place while carrying a gun.

I've noticed this too. I read the statues several times and am currently reading Jon Gutmacher's book so many of you recommended to me. In both, it doesn't clearly define drinking while carrying illegal. Rather, it says firing your handgun IS illegal, except in self-defense (but a jury might not be so eager to side with you in a case that wasn't unmistakably in your favor, I would assume).

Secondly, the only mention of it, really, is that you cannot handle a firearm while impaired. i.e. drunk. According to Gutmacher, the term handle is essentially use with your hands. And maybe the definition of impaired is the same as the legal definition of being impaired for driving? What is that .06 in FL? I don't even know...

All I know is that it doesn't say specifically that you cannot drink while carrying, but rather you can get drunk.

Originally Posted by Miggy

The Idiot ILLEGALLY DISPLAYED A FIREARM that is a first degree felony. The carrying while intoxicated has nothing to do with it.

Being a newbie, I don't mean to contradict you, but in reading the aforementioned book by Gutmacher, I'm pretty sure it is only a 1st degree felony if the person does NOT have a CWP. If they have a CWP, I BELIEVE, it is a 3rd degree misdemeanor.

When you get caught with a gun while legaly drunk you should get the max punishment. The first thing that needs to happen is to have the ccw permit pulled fore ever. The next thing to happen is some jail time.

In my state, and several others where I have lived, possession of a firearm while intoxicated IS a crime. So there is no need to change the CCW laws as these laws already exist (and I'd bet that is true in FL). He committed several crimes: displaying or brandishing a firearm, possession of a firearm while intoxicated, endangerment, etc. Charge him, prosecute him, revoke his license, prove what we have been saying about the vast majority of CCW holders being law abiding and law enforcement supporting!

AGE

I agree, only those between 21 and 55 should have CP. After that,your ability mental ability diminishes. HOWEVER, at 64, I still have a new patent issued this month and two patents pending. Must be approaching senility. My friends are even older and would suprise the young experts commenting with thier class 3 weapons. I do very well at the range wit my 5 handguns. Personally, no permits issued until you reach 35.

This will make it even harder to get carry in restraunts that serve alcohol in states that currently prohibit it. This is also why I would support a no carry while drinking law. Not everyone will use common sense when enjoying a drink or two.

This will make it even harder to get carry in restraunts that serve alcohol in states that currently prohibit it. This is also why I would support a no carry while drinking law. Not everyone will use common sense when enjoying a drink or two.

I agree. You would think a rational person would avoid drinking alcohol in the first place when they're carrying a loaded firearm! It seems like a legal mess with anything involving firearms, let alone including alcohol into the equation. All you need is an anti-gun jury or prosecutor and even if you had one drink, they'll push it to you being a crazed drunk or something. I know how the legal system works, and being a new 2A advocate, I can see how they can easily manipulate situations involving guns....

Nope. It shows that "bad eggs" slip through the slimmest of cracks. But that's hardly hardly sufficient justification to scrap an entire system designed to filter out as many undesirables as can be effectively screened. The reality is, the truly undesirable (aka criminals) aren't screened at all ... they simply sidestep the silly controls and acquire their weaponry elsewhere.

Instead, what this story highlights is a successful system that screens to the ability it can, then holds people accountable for their actions. The guy being used in the example is, after all, being held accountable. Fairly efficiently, it seems. Exactly the way it should be.

If a truly successful system is sought, look to Vermont. It hinges everything on personal responsibility and being held accountable for one's actions. And blood isn't running in the streets there. Not surprising, that.

Nope. It shows that "bad eggs" slip through the slimmest of cracks. But that's hardly hardly sufficient justification to scrap an entire system designed to filter out as many undesirables as can be effectively screened. The reality is, the truly undesirable (aka criminals) aren't screened at all ... they simply sidestep the silly controls and acquire their weaponry elsewhere.

Instead, what this story highlights is a successful system that screens to the ability it can, then holds people accountable for their actions. The guy being used in the example is, after all, being held accountable. Fairly efficiently, it seems. Exactly the way it should be.

If a truly successful system is sought, look to Vermont. It hinges everything on personal responsibility and being held accountable for one's actions. And blood isn't running in the streets there. Not surprising, that.

Alaska has a very similar system to Vermont but restricts carry in establishments that sell alcohol for consumption on the premises. Vermont has certain restrictions also. I agree with "Vermont" style carry laws, key word here being laws. We must protect ourselves with truly common sense laws before the anti's use their "common sense" and destroy the right, just as NYC and San Francisco have done.

My email with the Author.... Since it's a email chain, start at the bottom and work you way up.

The Author never seems to make a point in support of his view that the CCW law should be changed, as a matter of fact, he states that the law already covers the use of a firearm wile intoxicated and the fact that displaying the firearm is a crime. I'm confused on his view of the subject.

I completely agree that guns and drinking do not mix. As a
non-drinker, the issue of drinking and carrying a gun will never
effect me. But still I ask, if a person does stop an deadly attack,
wile consuming a whisky sour at Applebee's, should that person go to
jail?

I think not.

But, maybe your correct, maybe there should be a BAC level associated
with the carrying of a canceled weapon, or a total ban on drinking and
self protection. But one case of old guy startling a couple of
restaurant patrons does not seem to justify such a law.

Thank for replying,
Jon XXXXX

On 9/12/07, tom.lyons@heraldtribune.com <tom.lyons@heraldtribune.com>
wrote:
> That is a lot of what ifs, so I'll add some: . What if he was so drunk
that
> his ability to judge whether shooting was reasonable was grossly impared?
> What if he couldn't shoot straight because of alcohol and he endangered
> other people as a result?
> If someone's fear of crime is such that we are asked to keep it legal
for
> them to carry a concealed gun while getting drunk, I'd suggest a better
> solution is for them not to get drunk in a public place.
> Tom L.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Jon XXXXX"
> <deacon51@XXXX To:tom.lyons@heraldtribune.com
> om> cc:
> Subject: Re. Concealed gun
law is mum on liquid lunch
> 09/11/2007 05:32
> PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Mr. Lyons,
>
> I am a currently resident of Maryland, and a Florida Conceded Weapon
> Permit holder from my days in the Navy stationed at Mayport, NAS Jax
> and Pensacola. Personally I do not consume alcoholic drinks, and I am
> applied by the actions of Mr. Rudolph.
>
> I suspect, as you seem to, that his actions where innocent of any ill
> intent. I can think of many possibilities for his action, to include
> getting to his wallet. When withdrawing a 1911, from it holster, it
> is standard safety to drop the magazine from the bottom of the gun,
> and rack the slid to clear the round from the chamber in order to
> render the weapon safe. Adamantly, this is just speculation on my
> part for the gun play.
>
> Maybe you're correct and there should be a limit on the consummation
> of alcoholic drinks or drugs, slimier to the requirements for driving.
> It is a proven fact that judgment is impaired by the use of drugs.
>
> But to me it seems that the law is working. In Florida, as you
> pointed out, it is against the law to display your firearm. Therefore
> he clearly should lose his permit to carry. But, would anyone be hard
> on the guy if he hadn't done this, but instead had to defend himself
> in the parking lot against multiple younger assailants, possibly
> armed, trying to rob/carjack/kill him just because he'd been drinking?
> Would we want him prosecuted for defending himself wile under the
> influence? Should we give up our rights just because we have had a
> drink or a few?
>
> Honestly, I don't know.
>
> Do we want to change the law and restrict self defense based on a
> isolated case of a old man forgetting where he was?
>
> Respectfully,
> Jon XXXXXX
> Pasadena, MD